MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2414831762 · doi:10.2196/mhealth.5445

Walking as a Contributor to Physical Activity in Healthy Older Adults: 2 Week Longitudinal Study Using Accelerometry and the Doubly Labeled Water Method

2016· article· en· W2414831762 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Giulio Valenti, A. Bonomi, Klaas R. Westerterp

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical activityAccelerometerActigraphyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationLongitudinal studyPsychologyGerontologyMedicinePhysical therapyComputer scienceCircadian rhythm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Physical activity is recommended to promote healthy aging. Defining the importance of activities such as walking in achieving higher levels of physical activity might provide indications for interventions. OBJECTIVE: To describe the importance of walking in achieving higher levels of physical activity in older adults. METHODS: The study included 42 healthy subjects aged between 51 and 84 years (mean body mass index 25.6 kg/m(2) [SD 2.6]). Physical activity, walking, and nonwalking activity were monitored with an accelerometer for 2 weeks. Physical activity was quantified by accelerometer-derived activity counts. An algorithm based on template matching and signal power was developed to classify activity counts into nonwalking counts, short walk counts, and long walk counts. Additionally, in a subgroup of 31 subjects energy expenditure was measured using doubly labeled water to derive physical activity level (PAL). RESULTS: Subjects had a mean PAL of 1.84 (SD 0.19, range 1.43-2.36). About 20% of the activity time (21% [SD 8]) was spent walking, which accounted for about 40% of the total counts (43% [SD 11]). Short bouts composed 83% (SD 9) of walking time, providing 81% (SD 11) of walking counts. A stepwise regression model to predict PAL included nonwalking counts and short walk counts, explaining 58% of the variance of PAL (standard error of the estimate=0.12). Walking activities produced more counts per minute than nonwalking activities (P<.001). Long walks produced more counts per minute than short walks (P=.001). Nonwalking counts were independent of walking counts (r=-.05, P=.38). CONCLUSIONS: Walking activities are a major contributor to physical activity in older adults. Walking activities occur at higher intensities than nonwalking activities, which might prevent individuals from engaging in more walking activity. Finally, subjects who engage in more walking activities do not tend to compensate by limiting nonwalking activities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01609764; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01609764 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6grls0wAp).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.762
Threshold uncertainty score0.728

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations63
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207